Experts not sure where airstrikes will lead

Posted: Sunday, October 07, 2001

By Lee Shearerlshearer@onlineathens.com

Sunday's bomb and missile attacks on Afghanistan may be a first step toward deploying U.S. troops in the mountainous central Asian county. But it's impossible to predict where the risky attacks will lead, said University of Georgia authorities on international security and the Middle East.

"This is new territory for everyone, for our military and political leaders, for our allies, and for all observers. I imagine there will be surprises along the way," said Gary Bertsch, director of the University of Georgia's Center for International Trade and Security.

"To be honest and candid, I don't see an end game to this," said Jeff Berejikian, a UGA political science professor who studies the Middle East. "It's kind of like throwing rocks at an anthill."

But the United States has no good choices as it tries to go after the men responsible for the attacks that killed thousands of people in the United States Sept. 11.

And it's unlikely that Osama bin Laden or key members of his al-Qaida terrorist network were touched by the strikes, Bertsch said.

"Those who are most responsible for terrorism are those who are going to be best protected. I'm doubting that Osama bin Laden and those that are closest to him are going to be touched by these initial air strikes," he said.

The bombing and missile strikes may have two purposes, said Berejikian, who studies the Middle East. The longer-term goal is to put pressure on the Taliban, the oppressive regime that has kept a shaky hold on most of Afghanistan for five years.

The immediate goal, however is to make airspace secure over Afghanistan -- safe for humanitarian efforts, and safe for ground troops from the United States and its allies, after a bombardment that might go on one or two weeks.

We will not likely see large-scale troop deployments of troops, but more limited incursions, putting troops on the ground where they are needed in a series of "drop-down" deployments to go after terrorist cells and groups, Berejikian said.

The United States is walking a tight-rope in taking the fight to Afghanistan, he said.

"There has to be a premium on trying to avoid civilian casualties and not seeming to be undermining a civilian government,'' he said -- even the repressive religious fundamentalists who form the Taliban.

"I just hope they don't hit a school. That could turn this whole thing upside down," he said.

Bertsch said that the U.S. strategy could indeed be to get rid of the Taliban in hopes of getting an Afghan government more friendly to the United States -- and less friendly to terrorists.

"I would imagine in reality this is more a strike against the Taliban than Osama bin Laden," he said. "Clearly we have decided that in harboring the terrorists the Taliban must be held responsible. But it will have consequences on the larger society of Afghanistan."

But the United States doesn't have very attractive choices as to who might replace the Taliban, he said.

Bertsch said that Sunday's missiles and bombs were "just a first step in what will be a long and difficult campaign. It's obvious that we have moved from the diplomatic, economic and financial responses to a military response. What will be the consequences of this is difficult for anyone to predict. That's the difficulty in this new kind of war. Now we're seeing the complexities that arise when we try to target those who are responsible for terror."

But the bombings also mean something else, said UGA geography professor Amy Ross, who studies international justice: that war is likely to replace a criminal investigation into the Sept. 11 terror attacks, and that more people -- including innocent people -- are going to die.

Investigations and criminal prosecutions are much more likely to get at who attacked on Sept. 11, how and why, she said.